Advertisement

International Journal of Early Childhood

, Volume 48, Issue 1, pp 111–127 | Cite as

Preschool Children’s Beliefs About the Acceptability of Relational and Physical Aggression

  • Cara S. Swit
  • Anne McMaugh
  • Wayne A. Warburton
Original Article

Abstract

This research examined differences in beliefs about the acceptability of aggression and behavioral responses to aggression of preschool-aged children. Two groups, identified from teacher ratings, participated in the research. One group of children exhibited relationally aggressive behaviors, and a comparison group was identified with non-aggressive behaviors. Children’s social skills were assessed through observations. Beliefs about the acceptability of aggression and behavioral responses to aggression were assessed using four vignettes presented with toy figures. Children were encouraged to use the figurines to verbalize or enact responses. Children’s responses were analyzed and could be categorized as problem-solving or aggressive responses. There were no significant differences between groups on beliefs about the acceptability of aggression. However, younger children held more accepting beliefs about aggression. The methodological technique identified that relationally aggressive children used more problem-solving and conflict resolution strategies compared to children in the comparison group. These findings have important implications for educators in recognizing that not all forms of aggression are associated with fewer prosocial problem-solving skills. Methodological techniques employed in this study are recommended for use in the delivery of intervention programs aimed at reducing aggressive behaviors of preschool children.

Keywords

Relational aggression Physical aggression Social information processing Preschool Social cognition Early childhood 

Résumé

Cette recherche a examiné les différences de croyances chez les enfants d’âge préscolaire en ce qui concerne l’acceptabilité de l’agression et des comportements en réponse à l’agression. Deux groupes, constitués à partir des évaluations de l’enseignant, ont participé à la recherche. Les enfants d’un groupe montraient des comportements relationnels agressifs, tandis que ceux du groupe de comparaison avaient des comportements non agressifs. Les compétences sociales des enfants étaient évaluées par observation. Les croyances relatives à l’acceptabilité des réponses d’agression et de comportement à l’agression étaient évaluées à l’aide de courts scénarios mettant en scène des figurines. Les enfants étaient invités à utiliser les figurines pour verbaliser ou jouer leurs réponses. Les réponses des enfants ont été analysées et ont pu être réparties en deux catégories: réponses de résolution de problème ou agressives. Il n’y avait pas de différence significative entre les croyances des groupes relativement à l’acceptabilité de l’agression. Cependant, les enfants plus jeunes montraient une plus grande acceptation de l’agression dans leurs croyances. La méthodologie utilisée a permis de relever que les enfants ayant des relations agressives utilisaient plus souvent des stratégies de résolution de problèmes et de conflits que les enfants du groupe de comparaison. Ces résultats pourraient avoir des implications importantes pour les éducateurs en reconnaissant que toutes les formes d’agression ne sont pas forcément associées à moins d’habiletés sociales de résolution de problème. Il est recommandé que les techniques méthodologiques utilisées dans cette étude le soient aussi dans l’offre de programmes d’interventions visant à réduire les comportements agressifs d’enfants d’âge préscolaire

Resumen

Esta investigación examina las diferencias en las creencias acerca de cómo la agresión en niños de edad preescolar es aceptada y abordada. Dos grupos, identificados a partir de las categorizaciones de los maestros, participaron en la investigación. El primer grupo es el que fue identificado por mostrar conductas agresivas relacionales. El segundo es el de comparación. Las habilidades sociales de los niños fueron evaluadas a través de observaciones. Las creencias acerca de la aceptación de la agresión y las respuestas al comportamiento agresivo se evaluaron con cuatro viñetas presentadas con figuras de juguete. Los niños fueron animados a utilizar las figurillas para verbalizar o representar las respuestas. Las respuestas de los niños se catalogaron como respuestas para resolver problemas o respuestas agresivas. No hubo diferencias significativas entre los grupos en cuanto a las creencias acerca de la aceptabilidad de la agresión. Sin embargo, los niños más pequeños mostraron más aceptación acerca de la agresión. La técnica metodológica también sugirió que los niños que muestran relaciones agresivas utilizan más estrategias para la resolución de conflictos en comparación con los niños en el grupo de comparación. Estos resultados tienen importantes implicancias para los educadores ya que sugieren que no todas las formas de agresión se asocian con menos habilidades prosociales para resolver problemas. Las técnicas metodológicas empleadas en este estudio se podrían utilizar en programas de intervención para reducir conductas agresivas en niños de edad preescolar

References

  1. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Atlas, R. S., & Pepler, D. J. (1998). Observations of bullying in the classroom. Journal of Educational Research, 92, 86–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Averdijk, M., Malti, T., Ribeaud, D., & Eisner, M. (2011). Trajectories of aggressive behavior and children’s social-cognitive development. International Journal of Developmental Science, 5, 103–111. doi: 10.3233/DEV-2011-10067.Google Scholar
  4. Bellmore, A. D., Witkow, M. R., Graham, S., & Juvonen, J. (2005). From beliefs to behavior: The mediating role of hostile response selection in predicting aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 1–20. doi: 10.1002/ab.20094.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boxer, P., Tisak, M., & Goldstein, S. (2004). Is it bad to be good? An exploration of aggressive and prosocial behavior subtypes in Adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 33, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cillessen, A., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75, 147–163. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Côté, S., Vaillancourt, T., Barker, E., Nagin, N., & Tremblay, R. (2007). The joint development of physical and indirect aggression: Predictors of continuity and change during childhood. Developmental Psychopathology, 19, 37–53. doi: 10.1017/S0954579407070034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Crick, N. R., Casas, J., & Mosher, M. (1997). Relational and overt aggression in preschool. Developmental Psychology, 33, 579–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information processing mechanisms in children’s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin, 115, 74–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crick, N., & Grotpeter, J. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crick, N. R., & Rose, A. J. (2000). Toward a gender-balanced approach to the study of social-emotional development. In P. H. Miller & E. Scholnick (Eds.), Towards a feminist developmental psychology (pp. 153–168). London: Routledge Press.Google Scholar
  13. Goldstein, S., & Boxer, P. (2013). Parenting practices and the early socialisation of relational aggression among pre-schoolers. Early Child Development and Care, 183, 1559–1575. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2012.738200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldstein, S., Tisak, M., & Boxer, P. (2002). Preschoolers’ normative and prescriptive judgments about relational and overt aggression. Early Education and Development, 13, 23–40. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1301_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hawley, P. (2003). Strategies of control, aggression, and morality in preschoolers: An evolutionary perspective. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 213–235. doi: 10.1016/S0022-0965(03)00073-0.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hayward, S., & Fletcher, J. (2003). Relational aggression in an Australian sample: Gender and age differences. Australian Journal of Psychology, 55, 129–134. doi: 10.1080/0004953042000298572.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Henry, D., Guerra, N., Huesmann, R., Tolan, O., VanAcker, R., & Eron, L. (2000). Normative influences on aggression in urban elementary school classrooms. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 59–81. doi: 10.1023/A:1005142429725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy (pp. 73–109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Huesmann, L. R., & Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 408–419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hurd, H. D., & Gettinger, M. (2011). Mothers’ and teachers’ perceptions of relational and physical aggression in pre-school children. Early Child Development and Care, 181, 1343–1359. doi: 10.1080/03004430.2010.527336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Leff, S., Waasdorp, T., & Crick, N. (2010). A review of existing relational aggression programs: Strengths, limitations, and future directions. School Psychology Review, 39, 508–535.Google Scholar
  23. Leff, S., Waasdorp, T., Waanders, C., & Paskewich, B. (2014). Better understanding and intervening to prevent relational aggression. In M. D. Weist, N. A. Lever, C. P. Bradshaw, & J. S. Owens (Eds.), Handbook of school mental health: Research, training, practice, and policy (2nd ed., pp. 171–184). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Murray-Close, D., Crick, N., & Galotti, K. (2006). Children’s moral reasoning regarding physical and relational aggression. Social Development, 15, 345–372. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2006.00346.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Nelson, D., Robinson, C., & Hart, C. (2005). Relational and physical aggression of preschool-age children: Peer status linkages across informants. Early Education and Development, 16, 115–140. doi: 10.1207/s15566935eed1602_2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nelson, D., Robinson, C., Hart, C., Albano, A., & Marshall, S. (2010). Italian preschoolers’ peer-status linkages with sociability and subtypes of aggression and victimisation. Social Development, 19, 698–720. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2009.00551.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Newborg, J. (2005). Battelle developmental inventory second edition examiner’s manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.Google Scholar
  28. Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15, 625–632. doi: 10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ostrov, J. M. (2006). Deception and subtypes of aggression in early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 93, 322–336. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2005.10.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ostrov, J. M., & Keating, C. F. (2004). Gender differences in preschool aggression during free play and structures interactions: An observational study. Social Development, 13, 255–277. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.2004.000266.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ostrov, J. M., Murray-Close, D., Godleski, S. A., & Hart, E. J. (2013). Prospective associations between forms and functions of aggression and social and affective processes during early childhood. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 116, 19–36. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Owens, L. D. (1996). Sticks and stones and sugar and spice: Girls’ and boys’ aggression in schools. Australian Journal of Guidance and Counselling, 6, 45–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Putallaz, M., Grimes, C., Foster, K., Kupersmidt, J., Coie, J., & Dearing, K. (2007). Overt and relational aggression and victimisation: Multiple perspectives within the school setting. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 523–547. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2007.05.003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stalker, K., & Connors, C. (2003). Communicating with disabled children. Adoption and Fostering, 27, 26–35. doi: 10.1177/030857590302700105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swit, C., & McMaugh, A. (2012). Relational aggression and pro-social behaviors in Australian preschool children. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 37, 30–34.Google Scholar
  36. Vaillancourt, T., Miller, J., Fagbemi, J., Cote, S., & Tremblay, R. (2007). Trajectories and predictors of indirect aggression: Results from a nationally representative sample of Canadian children aged 2–10. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 314–326. doi: 10.1002/ab.20202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Warburton, W. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2015). Social psychological study of aggression. In J. Wright (Ed.), International encyclopaedia of social and behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Oxford: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  38. Werner, N. E., & Hill, L. H. (2010). Individual and peer group normative beliefs about relational aggression: Developmental changes and impact on relationally aggressive behavior. Child Development, 81, 826–836.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Werner, N. E., & Nixon, C. L. (2005). Normative beliefs and relational aggression: An investigation of the cognitive bases of adolescent aggressive behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 229–243. doi: 10.1007/s10964-005-4306-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Werner, N. E., Senich, S., & Przepyszny, K. A. (2006). Mothers’ responses to preschoolers’ relational and physical aggression. Applied Developmental Psychology, 27, 193–208. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.02.002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Zelli, A., Dodge, K., Lochman, J., & Laird, R. (1999). The distinction between beliefs legitimizing aggression and deviant processing of social cues: Testing measurement validity and hypothesis that biased processing mediates the effects of beliefs on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 150–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cara S. Swit
    • 1
  • Anne McMaugh
    • 1
  • Wayne A. Warburton
    • 2
  1. 1.School of EducationMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyMacquarie UniversitySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations